NEW YORK v. LONGBOAT

STATE OF NEW YORK AND JOHN P. CAHILL, AS TRUSTEE OF THE NATURAL RESOURCES, PLAINTIFFS,V.LONGBOAT, INC. AND JAMES BARRY, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Scullin, Chief Judge.

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs commenced this action on April 28, 2000, pursuant to
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. § 9601 ("CERCLA"), as amended.
Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Longboat, Inc. ("Longboat") and
Defendant James Barry ("Barry") are responsible, as the current
owners and/or operators of the Napanoch Paper Mill Site ("Site"),
for all recovery costs incurred by Plaintiff New York State and
for all future response costs and natural resource damages in
connection with the disposal of hazardous substances at the Site.
Plaintiffs also seek recovery under the state law theories of
unjust enrichment and public nuisance.

Presently before the Court is Defendant Barry's motion to
dismiss and his request for a more definite statement.

II. BACKGROUND

The Site is a 19-acre former paper mill that has been operated
by various companies over the past century. See Complaint at ¶
8. The Site has not been used for any manufacturing business
since a fire occurred there in 1977. See id. at ¶ 9. Plaintiffs
allege that hazardous substances, including polychlorinated
biphenyls ("PCBs"), were used in the operations of the various
paper mills and were discharged with wastewater into lagoons
located on the Site. See id. at ¶ 10. The overflow from those
lagoons was discharged into Rondout Creek. See id. at ¶ 11.

Plaintiffs claim that since Defendants*fn1 have been the
owner/operators of the Site since 1985, pursuant to sections
9607(a)(1) and 9613(g)(2) of CERCLA, they are jointly and
severally liable for all response costs the State has incurred.
See id. at ¶¶ 33-36. Plaintiffs also seek relief for unjust
enrichment from Defendants. Plaintiffs argue that Defendants
failed to perform their duties and obligations and that,
therefore, the State had to do so in order to ensure the
protection of the public health and environment. See id. at ¶¶
37-40. Plaintiffs claim that Defendants were unjustly enriched by
the State's performance of those duties owed by Defendants. The
State, therefore, seeks restitution for the expenses incurred.
See id. at ¶¶ 43-44. Finally, Plaintiffs claim that Defendants
maintained a continuing public nuisance at the Site and are,
therefore, liable to the State under the common law of public
nuisance and the New York Real Property and Proceedings Law § 841
for all costs arising from the State's abatement of this public
nuisance. See id. at ¶¶ 46-48.

Defendant Barry, in support of his motion to dismiss, brought
pursuant to Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
asserts the following arguments: 1) improper venue pursuant to
12(b)(3);*fn2 2) failure to state a claim for which relief can
be granted pursuant to 12(b)(6); and 3) failure to join necessary
parties under Rule 19 pursuant to 12(b)(7). See Def.'s Notice
of Motion to Dismiss at 1. Defendant Barry also requests a more
definite statement pursuant to Rule 12(e) and raises the issue of
Defendant Longboat's capacity to be sued.

Plaintiffs respond that, even assuming arguendo, that
Defendant Longboat was properly dissolved, the company is still
subject to suit in this CERCLA action because a dissolved company
continues to exist for purposes of winding up its affairs. See
Pls.' Memorandum of Law at 4 (citing New York Business
Corporation Law § 1006). Plaintiffs claim that they are seeking
relief from Longboat for its actions beginning in 1985 before it
was dissolved. District courts have held that defunct companies
can be liable under CERCLA ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.